I. JOSEPHUS AND THE EVANGELISTS

Before I bring forward individual examples of coincidence between Josephus and the Evangelists, I cannot help remarking the effect which the writings of the former have, when taken together and as a whole, in convincing us of the truth of the Gospel history. No man, I think, could rise from a perusal of the latter books of the Antiquities, and the account of the Jewish War, without a very strong impression, that the state of Judæa, civil, political and moral, as far as it can be gathered from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, is portrayed in these latter with the greatest accuracy, with the strictest attention to all the circumstances of the place and the times. It is impossible to impart this conviction to my readers in a paragraph; the nature of the case does not admit of it; it is the result of a thousand little facts, which it would be difficult to detach from the general narrative, and which, considered separately, might seem frivolous and fanciful. We close the pages of Josephus with the feeling that we have been reading of a country, which, for many years before its final fall, had been the scene of miserable anarchy and confusion. Everywhere we meet with open acts of petty violence, or the secret workings of plots, conspiracies, and frauds;—the laws ineffectual, or very partially observed, and very wretchedly administered;—oppression on the part of the rulers; amongst the people, faction, discontent, seditions, tumults;—robbers infesting the very streets, and most public places of resort, wandering about in arms, thirsting for blood no less than spoil, assembling in troops to the dismay of the more peaceable citizens, and with difficulty put down by military force;—society, in fact, altogether out of joint. Such would be our view of the condition of Judæa, as collected from Josephus.

Now let us turn to the New Testament, which, without professing to treat about Judæa at all, nevertheless, by glimpses, by notices scattered, uncombined, never intended for such a purpose, actually conveys to us the very counterpart of the picture in Josephus. For instance, let us observe the character of the parables; stories evidently in many cases, and probably in most cases, taken from passing events, and adapted to the occasions on which they were delivered. In how many may be traced scenes of disorder, of rapine, of craft, of injustice, as if such scenes were but too familiar to the experience of those to whom they were addressed! We hear of a “man going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and falling among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.” (Luke 10:30.) Of another who planted a vineyard, and sent his servants to receive the fruits; but the “husbandmen took those servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” (Matth. 21:35.) Of a “judge which feared not God nor regarded man,” and who avenged the widow only “lest by her continual coming she should weary him.” (Luke 18:2.) Of a steward who was accused unto the rich man of having wasted his goods,” and who by taking further liberties with his master’s property, secured himself a retreat into the houses of his lord’s debtors, “when he should be put out of the stewardship.” (Luke 16:1.) Of “the coming of the Son of man, like that of a thief in the night,” whose approach was to be watched, if the master would “not suffer his house to be broken up.” (Matth. 24:43.) Of a “kingdom divided against itself being brought to desolation.” Of a “city or house divided against itself not being able to stand.” (Matth. 12:25.) Of the necessity of “binding the strong man” before “entering into his house and spoiling his goods.” (Matth. 12:29.) Of the folly of “laying up for ourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.” (Matth. 6:19.) Of the enemy who had maliciously sown tares amongst his neighbour’s wheat, “and went his way.” (Matth. 13:25.) Of the man who found a treasure in another’s field, and cunningly sold all that he had, and “bought that field.” (13:44.) These instances may suffice. Neither is it to the parables only that we must look for our proofs. Many historical incidents in the Gospels and Acts speak the same language. Thus, when Jesus would “have entered into a village of the Samaritans,” they would not receive Him, upon which his disciples, James and John, who no doubt partook in the temper of the times, proposed “that fire should be commanded to come down from heaven and consume them.” (Luke 9:52.) Again, when Jesus had offended the people of Nazareth by his preaching, they made no scruple “of rising up and thrusting him out of the city, and leading him unto the brow of the hill whereon the city was built, that they might cast him down headlong” (Luke 4:29); and, on another occasion, after He had been speaking in the temple at Jerusalem, “the Jews took up stones to stone him,” but he “escaped out of their hand.” (John 10:31.) Again, we are told of certain “Galilæans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.” (Luke 13:1.) And when our Lord was at last seized, it was “by a great multitude with swords and staves” (Matth. 26:47), as in a country where nothing but brute force could avail to carry a warrant into execution. So again, Barabbas, whom the Jews would have released instead of Jesus, was one “who lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the insurrection.” (Mark 15:7.) And when he was at length crucified, it was between two thieves. Let us trace the times somewhat further, and we shall discover no amendment, but rather the contrary; as we learn from Josephus was the case on the nearer approach to the breaking out of the war. Thus Stephen is tumultuously stoned to death. (Acts 7:58.) And “Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and taking men and women, committed them to prison.” (8:3.) But when Saul’s own turn came that he should be persecuted, what a continued scene of violence and outrage is presented to us! Turn we to the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd chapters of the Acts. It might be Josephus that is speaking in them. Paul, on his coming to Jerusalem, is obliged to have recourse to a stratagem to conciliate the people, because “the multitude would needs come together, for they would hear that he was come.” Still it was in vain. A hue and cry is raised against him by a few persons who had known him in Asia, and forthwith “all the city is moved, and the people run together and take Paul, and draw him out of the temple.” The Roman garrison gets under arms, and hastens to rescue Paul; but still it is needful that he be “borne of the soldiers, for the violence of the people.” He makes his defence. They, however, “cry out, and cast off their clothes, and throw dust in the air.” He is brought before the council, and the “high-priest commands them that stand by him to strike him on the mouth.” He now, with much dexterity, divides his enemies, by declaring himself a Pharisee and a believer in the resurrection. This was enough to set them again at strife; for then there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees—and such was its fury, that “the captain, fearing Paul should be pulled in pieces by them, commands his soldiers to go down and take him by force from among them.” No sooner is he rescued from the multitude, than forty persons and more “bind themselves by a curse to kill him” when he should be next brought before the council. Intelligence of this plot, however, is conveyed to the captain of the guard, who determines to send him to Cæsarea, to Felix the governor. The escort necessary to attend this single prisoner to his place of destination is no less than four hundred and seventy men, horse and foot, and, as a further measure of safety and precaution, they are ordered to set out at the third hour of the night. All these things, I say, are in strict agreement with the state of Judæa as it is represented by Josephus. And it might be added, that independently of such consideration, an argument for the truth of the Gospels and Acts results from the harmony upon this point which prevails throughout them all: a circumstance which I might have dwelt upon in the former section, but which it will be enough to have noticed here.

But further, a perusal of the writings of Josephus leaves another impression upon our minds—that there was a very considerable intercourse between Judæa and Rome. To Rome we find causes and litigations very constantly referred—thither are the Jews perpetually resorting in search of titles and offices—there it is that they make known their grievances, explain their errors, supplicate pardons, set forth their claims to favour, and return their thanks. Neither are there wanting passages in the New Testament which would lead us to the same conclusion; rather, however, casually, by allusion, by an expression incidentally presenting itself, than by any direct communication on the subject. Hence may we discover, for instance, the propriety of that phrase so often occurring in the parables and elsewhere, of men going for various purposes “into a far country.”

Thus we read that “the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.” (Mark 13:34.) And again, that “a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” (Luke 19:12.) And again, that the prodigal son, “gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance in riotous living.” (Luke 15:13.) And again, that “a certain householder planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.” (Matth. 21:33.) Moreover, it is probable that this political relationship of Judæa to Rome, the seat of government, from whence all the honours and gainful posts were distributed, suggested the use of those metaphors, which abound in the New Testament, of the “kingdom of heaven,” of “seeking the kingdom of heaven,” of “giving the kingdom of heaven,” and the like. All I mean to affirm is this, that such allusions and such figures of speech would very naturally present themselves to a Teacher situated as the Gospel represents Jesus to have been—and therefore go to prove that such representation is the truth.